The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:04, 9 March 2010 [1].

---

El Al[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

• Featured article candidates/El Al

• Featured article review/El Al/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Notified: Flymeoutofhere, WikiProject Airlines, WikiProject Israel

I am nominating this featured article for review because is has fallen short of the FA criteria. While there are no huge issues, there are a lot of smaller things which summed up make the article mature for a review. Some comments:

• The lead is shorter than would be expected of an article this length. It in no way summarizes the article, for instance leaving no mention of the fleet. It also tends to overfocus on details and has a what I feel is a 'glorification' of the airline (through selective choice of content, not necessarily because what is stated is in any way untrue).
• Two of the section titles contain 'El Al'. These should be removed. Also, the section 'today' should be renamed something more specific, such as 'operations'. (fixed)
• There are two instances of galleries, neither which are suitable. (fixed)
• The article needs a thorough copyedit. For instance, the first sentence of 'history' flows badly because it lacks a comma after the date. Other issues are that the aviation term for 'borrowing an aircraft' is 'lease'; most of the sentences are very short, giving a compulsory feeling of having to make too many breaks, thus eliminating the flow of the prose; spaced emdashes; using $ without specifying currency; short paragraphs; a number of smaller MOS issues;
• The individual hijackings should be covered in the 'accidents and incidents' sections. Instead, the prose should not so much cover the incidents as the reactions and measures the airline did. (modified, so should be okay now)
• I am uncertain if File:El Al ocean ad.png is within Wikipedia's permitted fair use policy. (okay)

After double-checking with HeWiki's resident lawyer, I have been satisfied that the image is in the public domain and changed the license accordingly. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• All the [very short] paragraphs under '1990s and early 2000s' start with "In [date]... or on [date]...". (better)
• The lead states very bluntly that the airline is the world's most secure. However, in the body, this is only accredited to a single source. (okay)
• Only military geeks know what 'CAMPS' are.
• There are some uncited claims.
• There should be a more filling explanation of the destinations and services, and the codeshare cooperation should be written into the prose. (partially fixed)
• Again, the fleet section should have prose discussion the fleet before the actual list. An overview of past fleet (either in the fleet or history section) should be included. (partially fixed)
• Instead of many small sections with alienating titles (i.e. using brand names), a section such as service should be created to include the various aspects (frequent-flyer program, lounges etc.) (fixed)
• I am unsure about this, but it would be easier to read if the incidents and accidents section was converted to a table (with date, location, aircraft and a description)
• As 'Sun D'Or International Airlines' is mentioned in the prose, it should not be in "see also". (fixed)
• Two links point back to the article.
• There are eight dead links.
• One reference is a bare link. (removed)

Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After spending some time copyediting the article, things seem to be getting worse. While looking through references, there seems to be more and more uncited or vague claims. Right now there are four ((citation needed)) tages, and about a dozen commented comments related to inconsistencies or lacks of the prose. At the moment, there seem to be two main issues with the article, which will both require a significant portion of work to conform to: 1) the sources are in part lacking, in part not up to standards and in part dead. A few places, the age of the sources give either dated information (typically statistics from 2006 or 2007) or claims which cannot automatically be considered true nine years later 2) the prose is not up to featured standards. While most of it fine and grammatically correct, the prose is not 'brilliant'. Several places, the prose uses an unprofessional language, it is unnecessary vague or flows badly. In addition, there are still a few MOS-non-compliances, although most of these have been straightened out. While the article is now better than when the review commenced, it is still in need of some sourcing and research, which I will not conduct myself, although I can of course be of assistance. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

• There are too many. I agree that the gallery sections should be removed. The images should be placed next to appropriate text to illustrate individual points.
• File:Elal.jpg and File:BGN LY King David Lounge birdseyeview.jpg: no evidence of permission.
• File:ELAL 747-200 4X-AHQ EPWA 24 08 2004.jpg: the uploader is not the author, and the relation between them is unclear.
• None of the images have alt text.
• I think the fair use rationale on the one non-free image is fine: the advert is the subject of critical commentary in the article and it appears to meet the criteria for inclusion. DrKiernan (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arsenikk! Thank you for the interesting review. I will attempt to address the issues you have raised with time. However, please note that Nominators typically assist in the process of improvement; they may post only one nomination at a time. I request that you withdraw the nomination for the time being, and I will definitely take all of your comments into account and try to improve the article. I hope you can help! Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Article contains invalid HTML. To fix this, please see the W3C markup validation report and Help:Markup validation #Invalid character at start of identifier. Eubulides (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Section headers no long start with numbers. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents and incidents

There is long-standing consensus at WP:Airlines to include a list of notable incidents and accidents in the article; see WP:AIRCRASH. Many of the listed incidents have their own article, and many of the incidents could have their own. Some incidents are notable enough to mention in the article, but not enough to have a their own article—these are by convention placed in the airline section, and, if relevant, in an airport article. While I can agree that the current list seems a bit non-professional, this is the way articles are being passed through GA, and no real alternative exists at the moment. In my opinion, including the in the history is perhaps not as good an idea as can seem, because the incidents ten to be notable independent of the chronology. Perhaps someone has some better ideas for how this can be done? Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criterion of concern are prose, comprehensiveness, lead, citations. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - Still many citation needed tags, plus some of the entries in the "Incidents and accidents" section are unreferenced but not tagged. The "Incidents and accidents" section should be turned into prose, or even integrated completely into the History section, as much of the information is duplicated there anyways. At 55k, this article doesn't need to be duplicating large amounts of information. There are lots of short paragraphs, which make the article choppy, and the punctuation needs a comb-through. Some sandwiching of text between the images in the Early years section, which needs to be resolved. There are several dead links in the references (see the toolbox for the link checker tool) and the lead needs to be expanded. Dana boomer (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per Dana Boomer, very many dead links and sourcing issues, also agree on the "Incidents and accidents" section being an examplefarm. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist for lack of proper references and sub-standard prose. No-one is working on brining it up to proper standards. Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, referencing issues. Cirt (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.